Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 358, Novembre 2010

1. 523. The complaint is contained in communications from Education International (EI) and the Fijian Teachers’ Association (FTA) dated 1 July, 11 August and 9 September 2009 and 30 August 2010.
2. 524. The Government forwarded its partial response to the allegations in communications dated 1 September 2009 and 27 May 2010.
3. 525. Fiji has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 526. In a communication dated 1 July 2009, the complainant organizations, EI, and its member organization, the FTA, allege acts of anti-union discrimination, anti-union harassment and interference, in violation of ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98 ratified by Fiji in 2002 and 1974, respectively.
   • Act of anti-union discrimination
2. 527. EI and the FTA deplore that the Government prejudiced Mr Tevita Koroi, President of the FTA and President of the Council of Pacific Education, by terminating his employment in the civil service on account of the mandate he holds from the teachers’ association.
3. 528. On 10 December 2008, Fiji’s Public Service Commission (PSC) notified Mr Koroi of the suspension from his position as school principal and subsequently terminated his employment in the civil service on 30 April 2009.
4. 529. Mr Koroi has been charged with three offences for allegedly breaching Fiji’s Public Service Code of Conduct, which is part of the Public Service Act promulgated in 1999. The accusations were based on a statement Mr Koroi had made on 5 December 2008 during a meeting held at the FTA headquarters in Suva, where he took the floor as the President of the FTA for the launch of the Movement for Democracy in Fiji. The gathering was attended by representatives of trade unions, civil society groups, political parties and members of the general public. During his speech, Mr Koroi stated that “[the Movement for Democracy] will organize and coordinate a campaign to return Fiji to a parliamentary rule as quickly as possible. The announcement of the initiative is timely to coincide with the second anniversary of the forceful takeover of the elected government by the Republic of Fiji Military Forces.” This gathering did not take place at a school, with students in attendance, or during school hours. The complainants thus believe that Mr Koroi was acting in his capacity as FTA President and consider it unfair and unjust to discipline Mr Koroi in his position as school principal.
5. 530. The FTA has filed a dispute with the Ministry of Labour and Industrial Relations against the decision of termination as handed down by the PSC. According to the complainants, there are no other avenues for appeal through the court system in Fiji, as the Government’s Appeals Board has been abolished, just like the High Court, the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court, as a result of the abrogation of the country’s Constitution on 10 April 2009. In their communication dated 30 August 2010, the complainants indicate that, until now, no response has been received from the Ministry of Labour.
6. 531. In addition, EI addressed a letter to the Fijian authorities to condemn the suspension of Mr Koroi on 9 February 2009. On 18 February, in response to this letter, the Ministry of Education of Fiji, in the person of the Permanent Secretary for Education, National Heritage, Culture and Arts, Youth and Sports, replied that “Mr Koroi has been disciplined as a civil servant for speaking on matters beyond his jurisdiction as a civil servant and also as trade union leader of a union that deals only with teachers and their work conditions.” The Fiji Teachers Union (FTU), the other EI affiliate in Fiji, and the Fiji Islands Council of Trade Unions (FICTU), where Mr Koroi as the FTA President is a member of the Executive, have expressed their support to Mr Koroi. In a letter to the PSC, dated 11 June 2009, the FTU requested that Mr Koroi be reinstated in his position without any loss of salary, and the FICTU expressed concerns about his termination that is “most unreasonable and unjustified and totally unrelated to his role as a public servant”.
7. 532. Furthermore, the complainant organizations indicate that the activities of trade union leaders in Fiji are protected by the laws of the country under the former Trade Union Act and the 2007 Employment Relations Promulgation. The Employment Relations Act, promulgated in 2007, protects the workers against discrimination on the grounds of, inter alia, political opinion and trade union membership or activity in respect of recruitment, training, promotion, terms and conditions of employment, termination of employment or other matters arising out of the employment relationship. In addition, the Fijian Constitution, which unfortunately has been abrogated on 10 April 2009, guarantees the rights to freedom of association and freedom of expression. The Public Service Code of Conduct, which regulates the conduct of civil servants, states that “the public service respects the values, policies, rights and freedoms set out in the Constitution”.
8. 533. With reference to the fundamental principles of freedom of association such as freedom of expression and adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of employment, EI and the FTA therefore conclude that the dismissal of Mr Koroi is in clear violation of his right to exercise his legitimate duties as a trade union leader, recognized by the Fijian legislation and by international labour standards, and that he was punished as a school principal for a role that he had performed as a trade union leader. In their view, this is the first time since the establishment of the FTA in 1934 that a union president is disciplined as a civil servant and a trade unionist. Although the FTA has participated in many trade union activities throughout the years, including strikes, protests, public rallies, marches and even the formation of a political party in 1985, previous governments have always recognized the constitutional role of unions and trade union leaders, and the FTA President has over the years been appointed by the Ministry of Education at various forums for the formulation of the country’s education policies.
9. 534. The complainants call for the immediate reinstatement of Mr Koroi into his civil servant and school principal positions and compensation, and for the withdrawal of all charges against him by the appropriate authorities.
10. 535. In their communication dated 9 September, the FTA submits further evidence of discriminative action taken by Fiji’s interim regime against Mr Koroi as regards the issue of representation of the FTA at various forums. In a letter of 11 August 2009, the Ministry of Education instructed that Mr Koroi would not be accepted as a representative of the FTA at certain forums, namely the Education Forum, the Fiji Teachers’ Registration Board, the Joint Consultative Committee (JCC) and the Staff Board (CSB).
    • Additional anti-union harassment and interference
11. 536. The complainant organizations allege that the home and car of Mr Attar Singh, General Secretary of the FICTU have been vandalized, that his office has on two occasions been the target of fire bombs, and that he himself has been taken to the military camp and tortured. Other trade union leaders such as Mr Taniela Tabu, General Secretary of the Viti National Union of Taukei Workers, have also experienced similar types of treatment since the recent political events and, sadly, these acts of threats and vandalism on their lives and properties have never been sanctioned. Moreover, at the end of May 2009, the Building, Construction and Timber Workers’ Union filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour following the dismissal of 30 workers in the company Haroon Holdings after they had joined a union. The complainants indicate that the situation has resulted in a general feeling of threat, intimidation and oppression of workers and citizens in general, since avenues for seeking redress are very limited or non-existent.
12. 537. In their communication dated 30 August 2010, the complainants provide additional information denouncing restrictions on union meetings, on the freedom of movement of trade unionists and on union membership (especially for civil servants), the restriction of the right to express opinions through the press (via the Media Decree of 28 June 2010), the abolition of representative bodies (e.g. Towns and City Councils, Sugar Cane Growers Council, etc.) or of their tripartite composition (e.g. Fiji National Provident Fund), new methods of recruiting civil servants and the Government’s rule by Decree.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 538. In its communication dated 1 September 2009, the Government indicates that Mr Koroi had already been charged with disciplinary offences in 2002 under the Finance Act and had been fined and reprimanded. Also, in 2008, he had been charged under General Orders 309, found guilty and, as a penalty, downgraded to a minimum of 2D grade. Under General Orders 309(b) and (c), no officer or employee shall, without the permission of the Secretary for the Public Service, whether on duty or on leave of absence: contribute to, whether anonymously or otherwise, or cause to be published in any manner, anything which may reasonably be regarded as of political or administrative in nature; or speak in public or broadcast on any matter which may reasonably be regarded as of a political or administrative in nature. According to the Government, such rules are not uncommon in Commonwealth countries.
2. 539. The recent penalty to terminate Mr Koroi’s employment on 30 April 2009 is due to breaches of the Public Service Code of Conduct stipulated under the Public Service Act, 1999, which provides for the ways in which a civil servant should conduct in the course of employment in the civil service. Section 6 of the Act spells out 14 codes that all civil servants have to observe, and section 7 of the Act provides that any breach of those codes will form the ground or basis for disciplinary action.
3. 540. Mr Koroi holds the position of President of the FTA and trade union officer and has, simultaneously, held an appointment of civil servant as the principal of the Nasinu Secondary School. The Government indicates that the Ministry of Education has had to deal with Mr Koroi on a number of occasions regarding his participation in political activities and public comments against the Government which violated his position as a civil servant. The Ministry tried to reason Mr Koroi in that he needed to be mindful of his status as a civil servant, to uphold the Public Service Code of Conduct when participating in public forums and not to be misled that he could do as he wished as the President of his trade union. The Ministry went on to advise Mr Koroi and the FTA to utilize full-time officers of the Union who are not civil servants to represent and speak in forums that involve political parties and other NGOs on topics that are political in nature. According to the Government, the advice was not considered by Mr Koroi, as he continued to speak and participate in such forums that are completely outside the scope of his position and most importantly his status as a civil servant and an employee of the State. The Government considers that, due to his non-cooperation, there was no other option but to institute disciplinary actions against him, and his case was taken through the PSC Disciplinary Procedures, which finally led to the decision to terminate his position as a civil servant and teacher of the State.
4. 541. On the allegation of anti-union discrimination, the Government categorically denies that its actions led to the dismissal of Mr Koroi. It points out that, in this case, the Government is the employer which provides employment to public servants who are covered by ethics and values stipulated under the Public Service Act, 1999. With due respect to the rights of Mr Koroi as a trade unionist, as a government employee he was also expected to observe the requirements of that Act, which provides for the ways in which a civil servant should conduct in the course of employment in the public service. The action of Mr Koroi was considered as vilifying the Government, his employer, and violating the principles of good faith.
5. 542. While respecting the rights of workers and trade unionists under Conventions Nos 87 and 98 as also laid down by part 2 of the Employment Relations Promulgation, 2007, on the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, the Government considers that the Public Service Act 1999 is a law of the land as stipulated in Article 8(1) of Convention No. 87, which is to be followed by all civil servants without discrimination, irrespective of whether the civil servant is a member of a trade union or not. The PSC had made its decision to terminate Mr Koroi’s service as a civil servant teacher based purely on his breach of the Public Service Act and its Code of Conduct. This law, together with the Employment Relations Promulgation, 2007, was designed to promote a very high professional standard amongst civil servants in Fiji.
6. 543. In its communication dated 27 May 2010, the Government reiterates that the case at hand is a matter between the employer and an employee who has breached his terms and conditions of employment. The PSC found Mr Koroi to be in breach of sections 6 and 7 of the Public Service Act and General Orders 309(c), provisions broadly stating that civil servants are not allowed to speak in public or broadcast a matter which may be regarded as political or administrative in nature. As a result, the Ministry of Education, after verifying the facts through an internal investigation, suspended Mr Koroi by communication No. TPF42772 dated 10 December 2008. In the letter, Mr Koroi was advised to write directly to the PSC, should he wish to make representation on his suspension. Moreover, to ensure his right of appeal within the PSC internal grievance procedure, Mr Koroi was given the opportunity to mitigate against his suspension at a PSC hearing on 30 April 2009. After thoroughly considering all factors including Mr Koroi’s mitigation, the PSC found the employee guilty of all charges and decided to take the necessary disciplinary action. As a result, Mr Koroi’s employment was terminated on 30 April 2009.
7. 544. The Government indicates that, according to its records, Mr Koroi has not yet appealed against the PSC decision at the PSC Appeals Tribunal. Instead, the FTA filed by letter No. HQ/AD/32 dated 6 May 2009 an employment dispute on the issue with the Ministry of Labour under the dispute reporting mechanism of the Employment Relations Promulgation, 2007. However, the FTA withdrew the dispute by letter No. HQ/AD/32 of 11 September 2009, in the light of the Employment Relations Tribunal decision of Dispute No. 35 of 2008, stating that the Tribunal cannot adjudicate on employment disputes over the dismissal of an employee nor, as a result, over an “unjustified” or “unfair” dismissal.
8. 545. The FTA subsequently advised the Ministry of Labour that it would raise the alleged unfair termination as an employment grievance through the mediation service under the mechanism provided for in the Employment Relations Promulgation, 2007. However, according to the Ministry of Labour records, the report of this employment grievance has not yet eventuated. The Government indicates that, under section 4 of the Promulgation, “employment grievance” means that a grievance of the worker against the employer because of the workers’ claim, inter alia, that the worker has been dismissed or has been subject to duress during employment in relation to membership or non-membership of a union. If a worker is a member of a trade union, the worker has the additional choice of allowing the union to lodge an employment dispute regarding any employment matter (including anti-union discrimination) to the Ministry of Labour for determination and access to the “free of charge” mediation service of the Employment Relations Tribunal. In terms of employment grievance remedies, section 230 of the Promulgation provides the Employment Relations Tribunal or the Employment Relations Court to order reinstatement of the worker; reimbursement of lost wages; and/or payment of compensation to the aggrieved worker for humiliation, loss of dignity, loss of any benefit (monetary or not) and loss of any personal property.
9. 546. The Government concludes that the redress mechanism in Mr Koroi’s case has not been exhausted yet, as the FTA is yet to lodge an employment grievance on Mr Koroi’s suspension to the mediation service under the Employment Relations Promulgation, 2007, and hopes that the FTA will not delay this case and seek for social justice as provided for under the Promulgation.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 547. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the complainants allege dismissal of a trade union leader in the public service education sector and ongoing anti-union harassment and interference with internal trade union affairs.
2. 548. The Committee notes that, according to the complainants, the Government prejudiced Mr Tevita Koroi, President of the FTA, President of the Council of Pacific Education and member of the Executive of the FICTU, by suspending him from his position as school principal on 10 December 2008 and subsequently terminating his employment in the civil service on 30 April 2009, on account of the mandate he holds from the teachers’ association. The complainants indicate that the PSC charged Mr Koroi with three offences for allegedly breaching Fiji’s Public Service Code of Conduct, by holding a speech on 5 December 2008 for the launch of the Movement for Democracy in Fiji, during which he stated that “[the Movement] will organize and coordinate a campaign to return Fiji to a parliamentary rule as quickly as possible. The announcement of the initiative is timely to coincide with the second anniversary of the forceful takeover of the elected government by the Republic of Fiji Military Forces.” Given that the gathering did not take place at a school, with students in attendance or during school hours, but was held at the FTA headquarters in Suva and was attended by representatives of trade unions, civil society groups, political parties and members of the general public, the complainants believe that Mr Koroi was acting in his capacity as FTA president and consider it unfair to discipline him in his position as a school principal. According to the complainants, the Ministry of Education replied on 18 February 2009 to a letter of EI condemning his suspension that “Mr Koroi has been disciplined as a civil servant for speaking on matters beyond his jurisdiction as a civil servant and also as trade union leader of a Union that deals only with teachers and their work conditions.” The FTA also indicates that it has filed a dispute with the Ministry of Labour and Industrial Relations against the decision of termination as handed down by the PSC but has received no response so far. In the complainants’ view, as a result of the abrogation of the Constitution of Fiji on 10 April 2009, there are no other avenues for appeal through the court system in Fiji, as the Government’s Appeals Board, the High Court, the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court have been abolished. The FTA alleges further discriminative action taken by the Government in that, by letter of 11 August 2009, the Ministry of Education instructed that Mr Koroi would no longer be accepted as a representative of the FTA at various forums. With reference to the former Trade Union Act, the Employment Relations Promulgation of 2007, and the recently abrogated Fijian Constitution, the complainants conclude that the dismissal of Mr Koroi is in clear violation of Fijian legislation and international labour standards and that he was punished as a school principal for a role that he had performed as a trade union leader. They call for the immediate reinstatement of Mr Koroi into his civil servant and school principal positions with due compensation, and for the withdrawal of all charges against him by the appropriate authorities.
3. 549. The Committee notes from the Government’s reply that Mr Koroi had already been charged with disciplinary offences, fined and reprimanded in 2002 under the Finance Act, and charged under the General Orders 309(b) and (c), found guilty and downgraded in 2008. The Government indicates that, regarding his participation in political activities and public comments against the Government, the Ministry of Education has tried on a number of occasions to reason Mr Koroi in that he needed to be mindful of his status as a civil servant, uphold the Public Service Code of Conduct and not be misled that he could do as he wished as the union president. The Ministry also advised the FTA to utilize full-time union officers who are not civil servants to speak in forums that involve political parties on topics that are political in nature. According to the Government, the advice was not considered by Mr Koroi as he continued to speak and participate in such forums that are completely outside the scope of his position and most importantly his status as a civil servant and an employee of the State. The Government considers that, due to his non-cooperation, there was no other option but to institute disciplinary action against him. Thus, the Ministry of Education, after verifying the facts through an internal investigation, suspended Mr Koroi by communication of 10 December 2008. After having given Mr Koroi the opportunity to object to his suspension at a hearing on 30 April 2009, the PSC found him guilty of all charges and decided to terminate his employment on the same day. The Government points out that, with due respect to the rights of Mr Koroi as a trade unionist, as a government employee he was expected to observe the requirements of the Public Service Act, 1999 and to refrain from vilifying his employer and violating the principles of good faith. The Government considers that the Public Service Act is a law of the land as stipulated in Article 8(1) of Convention No. 87, which is to be followed by all civil servants, irrespective as to whether they are union members, and that the present case is a matter between the employer and an employee who has breached his terms and conditions of employment. In the Government’s view, the PSC decision to terminate Mr Koroi’s service as a civil servant is based purely on his breach of sections 6 and 7 of the Public Service Act and General Orders 309(c), provisions broadly stating that civil servants are not allowed to speak in public or broadcast a matter which may be regarded as political or administrative in nature. The Government also indicates that, according to the records, Mr Koroi has not yet appealed against the PSC decision at the PSC Appeals Tribunal. Instead, the FTA filed on 6 May 2009 an employment dispute on the issue with the Ministry of Labour under the dispute reporting mechanism of the Employment Relations Promulgation, 2007, but withdrew it on 11 September 2009, in the light of the Employment Relations Tribunal decision No. 35 of 2008, stating that it cannot adjudicate on employment disputes over the dismissal of employees. The FTA subsequently advised the Ministry of Labour that it would raise the alleged unfair termination as an employment grievance to the Mediation Service under the Employment Relations Promulgation, 2007. However, according to the Ministry of Labour records, the FTA has not yet lodged such grievance. The Government concludes that the redress mechanism in Mr Koroi’s case has not been exhausted, and hopes that the FTA will not delay this case and seek for social justice as provided for under the Promulgation.
4. 550. The Committee notes that the information provided by the complainant and by the Government coincides in that Mr Koroi was suspended from his position as school principal on 10 December 2008 and his employment in the civil service was subsequently terminated on 30 April 2009, due to a public statement made during a meeting in December 2008. The Committee notes, however, the conflicting versions of the two parties as to the nature and purpose of the statement and the justifiability of the dismissal. While the complainants believe that the speech at the FTA headquarters in Suva was held by Mr Koroi in his capacity as FTA President and constitutes a legitimate trade union activity, the Government considers that, by making a public statement of political nature directed against the Government, Mr Koroi has violated sections 6 and 7 of the Public Service Act and General Orders 309(c) thus breaching his terms and conditions of employment.
5. 551. In previous cases of dismissal of trade union leaders, the Committee has repeatedly highlighted that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, such as dismissal, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures. This protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions. The Committee has considered that the guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers’ organizations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom. It has pointed out that one way of ensuring the protection of trade union officials is to provide that these officials may not be dismissed, either during their period of office or for a certain time thereafter except, of course, for serious misconduct [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, paras 799 and 804].
6. 552. The Committee considers that the issue at stake is whether or not Mr Koroi’s public statement can be considered as a legitimate trade union activity and wishes to recall that it has already reviewed on previous occasions the question of normal trade union activities as opposed to activities outside the trade union sphere. The Committee notes that sections 6 and 7 of the Public Service Act and General Orders 309(c) contain a blanket prohibition for civil servants to speak in public on matters of a political nature. In this regard, the Committee points out that, firstly, in its opinion, teachers do not carry out tasks specific to officials in the state administration; indeed, this type of activity is also carried out in the private sector. In these circumstances, it is important that teachers with civil servant status should enjoy the guarantees provided for under Convention No. 98 [see Digest, op. cit., para. 901]. Secondly, the Committee wishes to reaffirm that measures, although of a political nature and not intended to restrict trade union rights as such, may nevertheless be applied in such a manner as to affect the exercise of such rights, and that a general prohibition on trade unions from engaging in any political activities would not only be incompatible with the principles of freedom of association, but also unrealistic in practice. Trade union organizations may wish, for example, to express publicly their opinion regarding the Government’s economic and social policy. The freedom of expression which should be enjoyed by trade unions and their leaders should also be guaranteed when they wish to criticize the Government’s economic and social policy. For the contribution of trade unions and employers’ organizations to be properly useful and credible, they must be able to carry out their activities in a climate of freedom and security. This implies that, in so far as they may consider that they do not have the basic freedom to fulfil their mission directly, trade unions and employers’ organizations would be justified in demanding that theses freedoms and the right to exercise them be recognized and that these demands be considered as coming within the scope of legitimate trade union activities [see Digest, op. cit., paras 36, 157, 206 and 503]. More generally, the Committee wishes to emphasize the importance which it places on respect for the basic civil liberties of trade unionists and for employers’ organizations, including freedom of expression, as essential prerequisites to the full exercise of freedom of association, and considers that the statement made by Mr Koroi (which has not been contested by the Government) falls fully into the realm of speech that should be protected, particularly as it was a view expressed outside the employment relationship.
7. 553. The Committee notes that the FTA has indicated that it has filed a dispute with the Ministry of Labour, considering that there are no other avenues for appeal through the national court system as a result of the abrogation of the Constitution of Fiji but that it has so far received no response from the Ministry. While the Government for its part reports that Mr Koroi has not yet appealed against the PSC decision at the PSC Appeals Tribunal and that the FTA has withdrawn the filed employment dispute and still not lodged an employment grievance to the Mediation Service under the Employment Relations Promulgation, 2007, the Committee recalls that the Government is responsible for preventing all acts of anti-union discrimination and it must ensure that complaints of anti-union discrimination are examined in the framework of national procedures which should be prompt, impartial and considered as such by the parties concerned [see Digest, op. cit., para. 817]. Thus, in light of the abovementioned principles, the disruptions in the judicial system in Fiji and the apparent absence of any constitutional guarantees, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that Mr Koroi is immediately reinstated in his former position as a school principal without loss of pay or benefits and to keep it informed of developments.
8. 554. As regards the allegation that the Ministry of Education instructed on 11 August 2009 that Mr Koroi would no longer be accepted as a representative of the FTA at various forums, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that, given that workers’ organizations are entitled to elect their representatives in full freedom, the dismissal of a trade union leader, or simply the fact that a trade union leader leaves the work that he or she was carrying out in a given undertaking, should not affect his or her trade union status or functions unless stipulated otherwise by the constitution of the trade union in question [see Digest, op. cit., para. 411]. Noting that the FTA continues to consider Mr Koroi to be the president of the union, the Committee urges the Government to refrain from any interference in this regard and to permit Mr Koroi, as the legitimate representative of the FTA, to carry out his representation functions at the relevant forums, including the Education Forum, the Fiji Teachers’ Registration Board, the JCC and the CSB.
9. 555. In addition, the Committee notes that the complainant organizations further allege that Mr Attar Singh, the General Secretary of the FICTU, has been taken to the military camp and tortured, that his home and car have been vandalized, that his office has on two occasions been the target of fire bombs, that other trade union leaders such as Mr Taniela Tabu, General Secretary of the Viti National Union of Taukei Workers, have also experienced similar types of treatment since the recent political events, that these acts of threats and vandalism have never been sanctioned. Additionally, at the end of May 2009, the Building, Construction and Timber Workers’ Union filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour following the dismissal of 30 workers in the company Haroon Holdings after they had joined a union. The complainants indicate that the situation has resulted in a general feeling of threat, intimidation and oppression of workers and citizens in general, since avenues for seeking redress are very limited or non-existent. The Committee deeply regrets that the Government has not replied to these allegations and wishes to recall that the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of these organizations, and it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected [see Digest, op. cit., para. 44]. The Committee therefore urges the Government to reply fully and without delay thereto and invites the complainant organizations to provide any relevant additional information.
10. 556. Finally, the Committee notes that, in their communication dated 30 August 2010, the complainants provide additional information denouncing, inter alia, restrictions on union meetings, on the freedom of movement of trade unionists and on union membership (especially for civil servants), restriction of the right to express opinions through the press and the abolition of representative bodies or of their tripartite composition. The Committee requests the Government to respond in detail to these allegations.
11. 557. Given the seriousness of the complainants’ allegations and the absence of a complete picture of the situation on the ground, the Committee invites the Government to accept an advisory tripartite mission from the ILO to clarify the facts and assist the Government and the social partners in finding appropriate solutions in conformity with freedom of association principles.